P. v. Stuart
Filed 3/17/06 P. v. Stuart CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DEMETRICE STUART, Defendant and Appellant. | B182700 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA271132) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Affirmed with direction.
Phillip I. Bronson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Robert F. Katz, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Roy C. Preminger, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted defendant and appellant Demetrice Stuart (defendant) of inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 237.5, subd. (a)[1]) and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The jury also found true the special allegation as to each offense that defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (a). The trial court found true the special allegations that defendant suffered a prior felony conviction for which he served a prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b); that he suffered a prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)); and that he suffered a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court sentenced defendant to 14 years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends that evidence that a prosecution witness engaged in felony conduct involving moral turpitude was admissible under article I, section 28, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution to impeach certain out of court statements the witness made that incriminated defendant. The trial court's exclusion of such evidence, defendant contends, violated his federal constitutional rights of confrontation and due process. We affirm the judgment.
We requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing the issue of whether defendant was awarded one extra day of presentence credit. Because the trial court improperly awarded defendant one additional day of conduct credit, we order the abstract of judgment modified to reflect 33 days of presentence credit.
BACKGROUND
Defendant and Betty Williams (Williams) lived together in apartment number 5 at 1770 South Vineyard in Los Angeles. Joanna Aquino (Aquino) lived across the street. At about 10:30 p.m. on September 12, 2004, Aquino was sitting on her front porch when her attention was drawn to defendant and Williams. Williams was crying and screaming for help. Defendant was holding onto Williams's torso, and Williams was trying to get away. Williams said, â€
